Defendant
appeals the district court=s
decision to hold him without bail pending the merits hearing on his alleged
violation of the conditions of his probation. We affirm.

On March 7,
2005, defendant was convicted of DUI #6, driving with a suspended license, and
grossly negligent operation. His aggregate sentence on the three charges
called for him to serve a twelve-to-twenty-four month sentence in the Intensive
Substance Abuse Program (ISAP) followed by an eighteen-to-thirty month
suspended sentence. On February 15, 2006, defendant was arraigned in Windsor
District Court for violating the terms of his probation on the suspended
sentence. The violation of probation complaint included affidavits from a
probation officer indicating that defendant tested positive for cocaine on a
number of occasions between October 31, 2005 and January 4, 2006.

At the February
15 arraignment, the State requested that defendant be held without bail. Given
defendant=s criminal
history and the repeated nature of the alleged violations, the State argued
that public safety required that defendant be held without bail. Defense
counsel opposed the request, arguing that defendant was not driving any longer
and thus was not a danger to the public, that he owns property as well as a
business in the area, and that he had never missed a court hearing. Thus,
defense counsel argued that the court should exercise its discretion and set
bail, employing conditions of release to address any public safety concerns.

The court
granted the State=s
request and ordered defendant held without bail. The court looked to the fact
that, as reflected on the docket sheet, the underlying DUI conviction was
defendant=s sixth.
The court also noted that defendant=s
two prior convictions for driving with a suspended license undermined his
argument that he was no longer driving. The court reasoned that defendant=s long history of substance
abuse and driving while under the influence, prior instances of driving with a
suspended license, and current allegations of regulated drug use combined to Aheighten[] [the court=s] concern about his risk
to public safety.@
The court ordered him held without bail. Defendant appealed.

Rule 32.1(a)(3)
of the Vermont Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that, in the context of a
probation revocation proceeding, an order denying bail or changing the terms of
release Ashall be
reviewable in the manner provided in 13 V.S.A. ''
7554 and 7556 for pretrial release.@
Under 13 V.S.A. '
7556(b), A[a]ny order
so appealed shall be affirmed if it is supported by the proceedings below.@ Thus, we must determine
whether the court=s
decision to deny bail is supported by the proceedings.

Defendant makes
essentially two arguments on appeal. First, he claims that he is entitled to
bail under Chapter II, Article 40 of the Vermont Constitution. The
Legislature, however, concluded that the constitutional right to bail does not
apply to probation revocation proceedings because by providing in 28 V.S.A. ' 301(4) that there is no Aright to bail or release@ in such a proceeding.
Accordingly, we reject defendant=s
first argument.

Second,
defendant asserts that the court abused its discretion by denying him bail. We
have held that a court has discretion to release a defendant on bail whether or
not he has a constitutional right to bail. State v. Passino, 154 Vt.
377, 379 (1990). To that end, we held in Passino that a trial court
must make findings to indicate how it exercised its discretion, even if it
concludes that the defendant should be held without bail. Id.

The court=s ruling here is consistent
with Passino. The transcript makes plain that the court did make
findings about defendant=s
criminal history, his numerous past DUIs and DLS=s,
and the current drug use forming the basis of the violation of probation
charge. And those findings are supported by the record. Accordingly, the
court=s ruling that
defendant posed a sufficient risk to public safety to warrant the denial of
bail is supported by the proceedings and must stand on appeal.